Why are some systems defined with the name "variable mass"?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of "variable mass" systems, particularly in the context of rocket motion in space. Participants explore the implications of mass changes during motion, the application of momentum equations, and the definitions of system boundaries in relation to ejected mass.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question why systems like rockets are labeled as "variable mass" when the mass of the entire system does not seem to change during a time interval.
  • Others assert that the mass of a rocket does vary due to the ejection of reaction mass, which affects the momentum of the system.
  • There is a discussion about the validity of the equation $$\sum F^{(E)}=\frac{d\vec{P}}{dt}$$ in scenarios where mass changes, with some arguing it holds true even when total mass varies.
  • One participant emphasizes that the definition of system boundaries is crucial, suggesting it may not make sense to include ejected mass in the system if it no longer interacts with the rocket.
  • Another participant illustrates a scenario with two connected masses, discussing how changing the definition of the system can lead to apparent changes in momentum without external forces acting on the system.
  • Concerns are raised about the treatment of mass and momentum in equations, with suggestions to use differential equations rather than finite difference equations for clarity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the treatment of mass in variable mass systems, particularly regarding the inclusion of ejected mass and the applicability of momentum equations. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of defining system boundaries and the implications of mass ejection on momentum calculations. There are unresolved questions about the treatment of previously ejected mass in ongoing calculations.

Soren4
Messages
127
Reaction score
2
I do not get why systems such as the rocket in space are defined as "variable mass" since the mass of the system is not varying.
The equation used for such systems $$\sum F^{(E)}=\frac{d\vec{P}}{dt} \tag{1}$$ (sum of external forces on the system equals the change in momentum) holds true only if the total mass of the system does not change during the time interval dt considered. Is this correct? I'm not sure of what I'm saying, only supposing it, because in the proof for (1) on textbook the center of mass is used and the mass of the system is taken as constant in the derivatives.
In rocket motion for istance we consider a time interval dt in which the mass of the rocket(with the gas inside of it) decreases of a quantity dm, but that mass of gas dm is still in the system (rocket+ mass dm of gas), even if it is not in the rocket anymore. In fact, writing the momentum of the system we do include the mass dm.
$$P(t)=mv$$
$$P(t+dt)=(m-dm)(v+dv)+dm(v-u)$$
(Where u is the relative velocity of the gas)
Does the total mass of the system really increase or decrease and (1) holds true also if the total mass of the system is varying?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Soren4 said:
I do not get why systems such as the rocket in space are defined as "variable mass" since the mass of the system is not varying.

The mass of a rocket varies due to the ejection of reaction mass.

Soren4 said:
The equation used for such systems $$\sum F^{(E)}=\frac{d\vec{P}}{dt} \tag{1}$$ (sum of external forces on the system equals the change in momentum) holds true only if the total mass of the system does not change during the time interval dt considered.

This equation also holds if the total mass changes.

Soren4 said:
but that mass of gas dm is still in the system (rocket+ mass dm of gas)

That depends on the definition of the system boundaries. It doesn't make much sense to include ejected mass into the system which doesn't interact with the rocket anymore.
 
If you have two masses ##m_1## and ##m_2##, connected together, traveling as a single object at velocity ##v##, and then suddenly consider ##m_2## to no longer be part of the object, then the momentum of the "object" decreases from ##(m_1+m_2)v## to ##m_1 v##.
There isn't any force involved with this change in momentum because it isn't a "real" change in momentum but a change in your definition of your object.

If you have a closed system, the total momentum is conserved, so if you have an "object" which loses mass, you can easily calculate the change in momentum of the object if you know the rate that momentum and mass are ejected from the object.
 
DrStupid said:
The mass of a rocket varies due to the ejection of reaction mass.

This equation also holds if the total mass changes.

That depends on the definition of the system boundaries. It doesn't make much sense to include ejected mass into the system which doesn't interact with the rocket anymore.
Thanks for the answer @DrStupid ! I think that it does not make sense to include the gas too, but when I write the equation P(t+dt)=(m-dm)(v+dv)+dm(v-u) I do include the infinitesimal mass dm of the gas that has been ejected. So the system considered is rocket+gas.
Nevertheless this is quite confusing because it seems to be the system "just for" the time interval considered dt. I'll try to explain it.
The system at t is rocket and gas (total mass m), at t+dt is the rocket and remaining gas (mass m-dm) plus the ejected gas dm. But after that? At the "next time interval" the mass of the rocket (with the gas inside of it) is still decreased of another amount dm and the mass of the gas ejected is increased of the same amount. But in the equation only dm appears, so it looks like we do not consider in the system the mass of the gas that has been ejected before that moment, but only the infinitesimal mass ejected in the time interval considered.

Probably I misunderstood something here, would you be so kind as to give me any suggestions about it?

Khashishi said:
If you have two masses ##m_1## and ##m_2##, connected together, traveling as a single object at velocity ##v##, and then suddenly consider ##m_2## to no longer be part of the object, then the momentum of the "object" decreases from ##(m_1+m_2)v## to ##m_1 v##.
There isn't any force involved with this change in momentum because it isn't a "real" change in momentum but a change in your definition of your object.

If you have a closed system, the total momentum is conserved, so if you have an "object" which loses mass, you can easily calculate the change in momentum of the object if you know the rate that momentum and mass are ejected from the object.
Thanks for the reply @Khashishi! I got what you said but the "object" you mentioned is only a part of the system, right? (In the case of the rocket , the object is the rocket, which is loosing mass, but the system, rocket + gas, is not loosing mass).
 
Soren4 said:
P(t+dt)=(m-dm)(v+dv)+dm(v-u)

I don't think that this is correct. It should be

p\left( {t + dt} \right) = m\left( {t + dt} \right) \cdot v\left( {t + dt} \right) = \left( {m - dm} \right) \cdot \left( {v + dv} \right)

I would avoid finite difference equation and use differential equations instead. With the second law

F = \dot p

the forces acting on rocket and gas are

F_R = m_R \cdot \dot v_R + v_R \cdot \dot m_R
F_G = m_G \cdot \dot v_G + v_G \cdot \dot m_G

With the third law

F_R + F_G = 0

conservation of mass

\dot m_R + \dot m_G = 0

mass ejection at constant velocity

\dot v_G = 0

and the velocity of the ejected gas

v_G = v_R + u

this turns into the rocket equation

\dot v_R = u \cdot \frac{{\dot m_R }}{{m_R }}
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
4K